Click on this. Look down and find "Obama: Public Enemy Number One."
Posted on 12/30/2012 10:09:06 PM PST by wrastu
Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery. He also confirmed to KS SOS Kris Kobach that the information contained in the White House image isNOT “identical to” that in the official record.
(Excerpt) Read more at theobamahustle.wordpress.com ...
Way too late, this should have been pushed in fall of 2007....
Finally the truth comes out.
Sure why not — now that he has already been re-elected and will serve out his current term. You slam that barn door shut just as soon as you are sure the horses have crossed the river over younder.
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Who are tose people?
Ping
The birth certificate is a fraud. The election was a fraud. So what? If it meant anything AZ wouldn’t allow him to be on the ballot and the republicans in congress would announce no more votes will be taken on anything since there is no legimate controlling authority to sign the bills into law.
AND, if a liberal had brains and a frog’s ass had springs....
Photo Credit: Barackofraudo.com
There is no record anywhere of this guy certifying anything except the validity of the birth certificate. One bogus “news” site publishes this crap, and the other bogus news sites pick it up. It’s like the Newton massacre all over again.
And what, it anything will come of it? Nothing to see here, move along. “And now let’s take a look at the weather............”
This birth certificate stuff just makes us look stupid. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama, but where he was born isn’t one of them.
Got that right. I'm only somewhat familiar with the birth certificate issue, but you really don't have to know about any issue to know that if Larry's involved, it's really all about enriching Larry's bank account.
I was skeptical, too, but then I clicked on the link for “Hawaii” and it went to Google Maps and showed that Hawaii is a real place. That was pretty convincing.
Did the map you looked on show Honolulu as being on Oahu?
So tell me why Onaka supposedly verified Honolulu as the birth city but didn’t verify Oahu as the birth island.
Everyone needs to recognize that it's time to move on. I sympathize and agree with the birthers, but we also need to be realistic that this story has long long since run its course and it is a waste of time to pursue it.
>>Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery.<<
Of course Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. Onaka always left himself some wiggle room in his “official” releases. Not so easy under oath.
Just when the State of Hawaii acknowledges that Obama’s birth certificate is legally non-valid, it’s time to drop the issue? That makes no sense. This whole time the Congress-critters have claimed that they have to take Hawaii at its word and that’s why they won’t do anything - and now Onaka has CERTIFIED (which in Hawaii is considered as a person making a sworn statement, according to Deputy AG Aaron Schulaner, when I spoke with him a couple years ago) that his verification, in compliance with HRS 338-14.3 (which requires verification of all submitted facts that CAN be verified as really happening that way), does not include verification of ANY of the submitted birth facts in the application form.
Congress needs to have their feet held to the fire. If they had to take Hawaii at its word when Fukino made carefully-parsed statements from which she couldn’t stray at all (and which never claimed a LEGALLY VALID birth record), then they sure as heck better have to take Onaka’s CERTIFICATION (again, considered a sworn statement according to Hawaii) at its word!
Right now is the FIRST TIME we’ve had the evidence we needed to legally pin Congress’ backs against the wall because of this LEGAL DOCUMENT.
It’s not time to drop out. This is where the real LEGAL battle begins, because Congress members (who would have standing in a lawsuit) have a LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to act on what was revealed in this LEGAL DOCUMENT. They no longer have any legal fig leaf to hide behind, and we need to be banging down their doors to remind them of that!
Onaka never actually gave any official releases. It was all Fukino, Okubo, or Fuddy. None of whom were under oath, as you noted. Very, very easy to make carefully parsed, deceiving comments in that situation. Obama does it almost every time he opens his mouth. The only time a wise person actually believes a politician is if they are under oath and they have evidence to back up what they say.
As I explained in the comment I just made, when I spoke with Deputy AG Aaron Schulaner about laws requiring sworn oaths, he said that the word “certify” is interpreted to mean a sworn statement. So Onaka’s certification of that letter of verification is considered to be Onaka’s sworn statement that what he disclosed was true and in compliance with HRS 338-14.3. He was under oath according to the interpretations of the HI AG’s office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.